USTA 2010 Ratings Bump - Playing Up a Level = More likely to be bumped

[g4driver]

I think I broke the USTA Code for at least a portion this year's bumps.

In my area, 64 3.5 Men played both 3.5 and 4.0. 37 (57.8%) of the 64 were bumped, while 27 (42%) remained at 3.5. But it gets more interesting.

My theory is the the USTA awards more Dynamic Rating Points for playing up than winning (unless winning decisively) at your current level. Wins at current level (unless the margin of victory is dominate in the 1-1, 2-2 range, don't do much to a rating.

I looked at a few other players from our area, notably one player who played #1 Singles, went to the local playoffs and has a "B" rating. I also looked at guys who played both 3.5 and played up at 4.0. One guy played both 3.5 and 4.0 in the Adult and Senior Leagues.

The #1 Single's Player went 14-2, went to playoffs and now has a "B" Rating. The only loses were to two players who were bumped to 4.0. One of the losses was to a 3.5 "S" player who was DQ'd player, so his record actually went to 15-1. Only one of his wins went to three sets.

His matches that counted toward his year-end rating:
7 Wins: 0&5, 4&1, 1&4, 1&1, 3&4, 2-2, 3-6/6-3/6-4
1 Loss: 3&1 (to a player who was bumped)

Then he had one loss that doesn't affect his Dynamic Rating against a 3.5 "S" who was DQed). (4-6, 6-2, 6-1)

He was unbeaten in 7 matches this fall, all in straight sets. He didn't get bumped.

Why I think I'm right:
We had two guys from my Men's 3.5 Team bumped to 4.0. Neither were self-rated players. One guy is clearly dominate at 3.5 in Singles, and wins consistently when playing 4.0 Doubles, and beats 4.0 players in Singles Leagues as well. The other guy is a solid doubles players, and only played at 4.0 in the Spring. His record was 1-4, but all the matches were either 3 sets or 7-5, 6-4

The Singles's Player who went 14-2 DID NOT play both 3.5 and 4.0

Know compare this dominate Single's player who only played Men's 3.5, to a Senior 3.5 Man, who played both Adult and Senior 4.0 and Adult 3.5, and Senior 4.0

The Senior Guy's spring record was:

0-6 Spring Senior Adult 4.0s (Lost 3&2 twice, 3&1 twice, 1&1, and 5-4)
1-4 Spring Adult 4.0 (Lost 4&3, 5&4, 1-6/6-4/6-1, 6-4/3-6/7-6, Won 4&2)
2-0 Spring Adult 3.5 (Won 3-6/6-3/6-4, and 4&2)

3-10 Combined Record for matches that count toward his year-end rating. And yes, he was bumped to 4.0. If you add in his Fall 3.5 record of 0-5, he went 3-15 for the year. This doesn't make much sense to me mathematically, but hey, it's the USTA. :-?

To be bumped up, simply play up. If the matches are close, you're likely to be bumped. 57.8 % of the guys who played up in my area were bumped.

The best part: The guy who went 15-1 as a single's player and had a team record of 17-0, only lost one guy. Nice guys with a killer team. He played three matches and beat another guy who was bumped who played both 3.5 & 4.0.

 

[atatu]

ITo be bumped up, simply play up.

No offense, but that's not exactly rocket science.

 

[ian2]

No offense, but that's not exactly rocket science.

It's not, but it is a nice case study. And a convincing one. g4driver, thanks for putting this together!

On a related note: it looks like USTA had made a decision to (nearly) freeze the up-movement at all levels above 3.0 and tweaked the NTRP algorithm to achieve this goal. I'm compiling some stats for my area (Denver Metro) and will post the results shortly in a separate thread.

 

[NoSkillzAndy]

No offense, but that's not exactly rocket science.

Yeah, well I think he's onto something. Obviously playing up will increase your chances of being bumped. But his point is that it's more dramatic than you think. For example, there is a certain league captain in Texas who should be a 3.5. However, after several years of being a 4.5 league captain and playing in on occasion to avoid defaults, he is now rated a 4.5 as of yesterday, despite having not won a match in years. He was 0-3 last year in 4.5 league, winning only 4 games over 3 matches, yet got bumped up from 4.0 to a 4.5. You do the math

 

[g4driver]

Two points:

First, the guy who went 15-1 at Men's 3.5 is clearly the better player, than the guy who has a yearly record of 3-15 (2-5 Record at Men's 3.5, 1-10 at Men's 4.0).

Second, the USTA is putting a lot of weight on playing up.

I've seen both players play and beat the guy who was bumped 6-2, 6-4. I don't think I could beat the guy who went 15-1. He beat down a friend 3&2, who I play against weekly. My friend and I split wins evenly. The single's player crushes the ball and is more consistent. I've watched this guy play twice this year, and he is very good. His record stands for itself.

The Senior guy who was bumped to 4.0 won 2 matches at 3.5, and lost 5 matches at the same level. So, his Men's 3.5 record is 2-5 this year. He won 28% of the time at 3.5, yet the USTA bumped him. Hardly a reason to be bumped IMO, and just more proof that there are many "4.0s" who can't beat "3.5"s.

My other point is, the USTA's system allows strong players to stay at the current level, but not playing up. So the next time people complain that guys are sandbagging, blame the USTA not the player. I don't think it's the player's fault when he dominates in wins, yet stays at his current level.

If the guy is up 5-1, he can pull up, and win 6-3 to avoid a spike in his Dynamic Rating. Do I think this happens? Yes, yes I do.

 

[ohplease]

Absolutely correct. The quickest way to get bumped is to play and be competitive at a higher level (note: competitive doesn't necessarily mean actually winning matches).

This is why captains active discourage players they want to keep from playing up.

On the other hand, if you're an ambitious player looking to improve quickly, there's no better way to do it than to play up.

 

[ian2]

My other point is, the USTA's system allows strong players to stay at the current level, but not playing up. So the next time people complain that guys are sandbagging, blame the USTA not the player. I don't think it's the player's fault when he dominates in wins, yet stays at his current level.

Ditto......

 

[michael_1265]

My theory is the the USTA awards more Dynamic Rating Points for playing up than winning (unless winning decisively) at your current level. Wins at current level (unless the margin of victory is dominate in the 1-1, 2-2 range, don't do much to a rating........

...........To be bumped up, simply play up. [/B] If the matches are close, you're likely to be bumped. 57.8 % of the guys who played up in my area were bumped.........

I agree with you on this point.

At 3.0 (C) in the spring, I was 2-2 for doubles (playing at #1 mostly), 3-0 for singles. Two of my singles opponents were bumped to 3.5.

I was 0-2 in 3.5 doubles (one was 3.0/3.0 against 3.5/3.5), 0-1 in singles, but the singles match was competitive against a player who was just bumped to 4.0.

Total record: 3-5. I was bumped (and I'm happy about it)

One of my 3.0(S) players was 10-1, 5-1 in doubles, 5-0 in singles, and one of his opponents in singles was bumped to 3.5. He did not play up. He was not bumped. He played most of his doubles as #3.

Another of my 3.0(s) players was 7-2 overall, 4-1 singles, 2-1 doubles. Two of his losing singles opponents were bumped up, and the guy who beat him in singles was also. He did not play up. He was bumped. He played most of his doubles at #1

Finally, one 3.0 (S) player who played doubles was 2-3 in 3.0 and 0-1 in 3.5, playing most of his doubles at #1. He was bumped.

From this limited sample, I suspect three factors:
1. Playing against players who end up getting bumped.
2. Playing up
3. Playing singles. I suspect that the algorithm might drastically reduce the weight of doubles if singles results are available.

Looking at our results and the skills of the players involved, I'll have to say they got it right in our case. The guy who wasn't bumped could certainly have played at 3.5, but it's my opinion that he could use another season at 3.0. I just said something good about the USTA rating system. Sometimes I surprise myself.

 

[gameboy]

I don't know why this is so complicated for people. The system is pretty transparent and simple.

If you beat a player, you get ranked higher than the player you beat AND if you are competitive with the player you lose to you get ranked near that player - rinse/repeat through the season and weigh it towards more common result - that is about it.

You have a much higher likelyhood that you will get bumped up if you play at a level up because you have a much higher likelyhood that your will beat a player at that higher level.

People who play at their own level and do not player level up won't be as likely because even if he/she beats everyone, it still may only indicate that that person is in the right level, albeit at the highest end of the scale.

It is a very very simple system. Some of the shortcomings are due to that simplicity.

 

[g4driver]

Ian2 & NoSkillzAnday,

Thanks for reading, and not throwing rocks.

Do a drill down report in your area. You can see just how many players played up a level, then, look at the % who were bumped.

Atatu,

So what is your point? I made one. Do you have one?

 

[g4driver]

I don't know why this is so complicated for people. The system is pretty transparent and simple.

It is a very very simple system. Some of the shortcomings are due to that simplicity.

Maybe the very, very simple system is very, very flawed.

A guy wins 28% of matches at 3.5, and 9% at 4.0 and is bumped. No that doesn't make any sense to me. Why is this so complicated for you not to see that?

 

[NoSkillzAndy]

I don't know why this is so complicated for people. The system is pretty transparent and simple.

If you beat a player, you get ranked higher than the player you beat AND if you are competitive with the player you lose to you get ranked near that player - rinse/repeat through the season and weigh it towards more common result - that is about it.

You have a much higher likelyhood that you will get bumped up if you play at a level up because you have a much higher likelyhood that your will beat a player at that higher level.

People who play at their own level and do not player level up won't be as likely because even if he/she beats everyone, it still may only indicate that that person is in the right level, albeit at the highest end of the scale.

It is a very very simple system. Some of the shortcomings are due to that simplicity.

If it's so simple & transparent, please explain to me how a rated 4.0 playing 4.5 league and losing all three of his matches earns him a bump up. His scores were 1-6, 0-6; 0-6, 2-6; and 0-6, 1-6. None of those are even close to being competitive, and it's not like he had a good season last year that would have left him at the top of his rating, as he hasn't won a match in 9 years and 90% of his losses are blowouts. IMO this player demonstrates that there is a part of the formula that tends to bump up players who play up, even if they do poorly.

 

[gameboy]

There are many ways. He could have beaten some in 4.0 league who got bumped to 4.5 and his results at 4.5 would do nothing to bring him back down.

If you send me is PM, I may be able to nail it down...

 

[Nor'easter]

I agree with the OP that playing up does increase your chances of getting bumped up. But so does playing at your current level and winning most if not all of your matches. I played both 3.5 and 4.0 this season and was bumped up to a benchmark 4.0. My doubles partner and I went 12-0 at the 3.5 level including winning all 4 of our matches at districts without dropping a set. She and I were also competitive at the 4.0 level with a 6-3 record. We were both bumped up, but others on our team were not as lucky. We had two other 3.5 gals playing on our 4.0 team that also had a decent record, but were not bumped up. Difference is that they had their wins against other 3.5's playing up. As far as our 3.5 team goes we all went to districts but only three of us were bumped up to 4.0~our singles 1 and doubles 1 teams.

 

[gameboy]

Maybe the very, very simple system is very, very flawed.

A guy wins 28% of matches at 3.5, and 9% at 4.0 and is bumped. No that doesn't make any sense to me. Why is this so complicated for you not to see that?

Because it is geared towards favoring his best results. Not his worst. That is not complicated.

 

[Fedace]

There is a real effort by the USTA to even out the 4.0 level. there has been too much cheating by too many 4.5 guys playing down and self rating themselves as 4.0. top 20% of the USTA 4.0 guys are really 4.5's.
Sorry you 3.5 guys were affected by all this. but i have played against guys that had 90% winning record in 4.0 and claiming they are 4.0's. and i had some real close matches against those guys and i have been 4.5 for last 8 years. I would evaluate those guys as 4.5 NOT 4.0.

So USTA is doing the right thing here. It will all even out in the end. I Salute USTA for doing this. Thank you.

 

[JLyon]

this is a tricky subject. I got the bump to 5.0 in 2010 due to playing 4.5 and 5.0. This year had a 4.5 play on my 5.0 team, he did not lose a 4.5, won 1 5.0 match and got stomped a few times at 5.0 and remained a 4.5. So USTA sometimes does not even know what their formula is. I went 1-5 with the win being a 4-4 retire injury. Split sets at Sectionals which probably did me in.

 

[g4driver]

Because it is geared towards favoring his best results. Not his worst. That is not complicated.

Gameboy, please define "best results"

Are you saying is his "best" loss (15 of those)? or his "best" win (only three of those)?

His best win at 3.5 was 2 & 4, and the only win at 4.0 was 4 &2. His closest 4.0 Loss was 4-6, 6-3, 6-7.

I'm not getting your point, but I'm trying to understand it.

 

[Fedace]

this is a tricky subject. I got the bump to 5.0 in 2010 due to playing 4.5 and 5.0. This year had a 4.5 play on my 5.0 team, he did not lose a 4.5, won 1 5.0 match and got stomped a few times at 5.0 and remained a 4.5. So USTA sometimes does not even know what their formula is. I went 1-5 with the win being a 4-4 retire injury. Split sets at Sectionals which probably did me in.

Playoff matches will put in danger of being bumped up. It has been this way for years.

 

[g4driver]

There is a real effort by the USTA to even out the 4.0 level. there has been too much cheating by too many 4.5 guys playing down and self rating themselves as 4.0. top 20% of the USTA 4.0 guys are really 4.5's.

I hit with a 4.5 who wants to sandbag at 4.0 out of the fear of losing at 4.5. He will self-rate in January 2011 at 4.0 and do exactly what you said. It's sad he puts so much emphasis on winning. I prefer to put my emphasis on getting better, even if I get kicked in the teeth doing it. To each his own.

My record for the year was 11-4 at 3.5. I will play more tournaments next year and see how I do.

 

[Fedace]

I hit with a 4.5 who wants to sandbag at 4.0 out of the fear of losing at 4.5. He will self-rate in January 2011 at 4.0 and do exactly what you said. It's sad he puts so much emphasis on winning. I prefer to put my emphasis on getting better, even if I get kicked in the teeth doing it. To each his own.

My record for the year was 11-4 at 3.5. I will play more tournaments next year and see how I do.

You should play few matches at 4.0 level too. Even if you put yourself in danger of being bumped up, you will have more Fun. If your record is that good at 3.5, you should do fine and have competitive matches in 4.0 level.

 

[NoSkillzAndy]

There are many ways. He could have beaten some in 4.0 league who got bumped to 4.5 and his results at 4.5 would do nothing to bring him back down.

If you send me is PM, I may be able to nail it down...

Those are his only results for the entire year. No other leagues or tournament play. 0-3 in 4.5 league -> bumped up! He hasn't won a match in 4.0 or 4.5 since 2001, most of his losses were complete blowouts, and he's now rated a 4.5 :shock:

 

[g4driver]

You should play few matches at 4.0 level too. Even if you put yourself in danger of being bumped up, you will have more Fun. If your record is that good at 3.5, you should do fine and have competitive matches in 4.0 level.

Thanks Fedace. I think I will. I want to compare the results for myself.

And congrats on the National Championship!

 

[Darkhors]

I looked at a few other players from our area, notably one player who played #1 Singles, went to the local playoffs and has a "B" rating. I also looked at guys who played both 3.5 and played up at 4.0. One guy played both 3.5 and 4.0 in the Adult and Senior Leagues.

If the player had the B rating before today, then he won't get bumped up because he's a benchmark.

I was given a 4.5B rating for this year and it wouldn't have mattered who I beat, I wasn't getting moved. I could have played 5.0 and won matches there, I still wouldn't have gotten bumped up. You're basically safe for one entire year.

As of today, I'm now a 4.5C rating. We had a group of 4.5's playing up in the 5.0 league this year and they made it to the first round of playoffs. None of them got bumped up to 5.0. As was stated before it really depends on the dynamic rating of the player you're up against. If they're playing up or have a low dynamic rating, then your chances of getting bumped are less than if you're playing someone (and win) who has a high end dynamic rating.

DH

 

[wrxinsc]

two things to consider...and the thesis of the op is correct, but the reasons are more fundamental to the rating system and its algorithm and less insidious...

first - if you play up you are consistently playing more highly dynamically rated players than you (by definition - right?). even if you are simply competitive your dynamic rating will increase.

second - only playing at your level will require you to be more dominate against dynamically rated players who are likely on par with you in order to increase you d.r. thus you are less likely to see movement.

it really is all about the match up. your opponents rating and your score. while the exact nature of the algorithm is not public knowledge, USTA is clear about the fundamentals. score and opponent's dynamic rating.

year end ratings have some extra mojo mixed in for sure!

 

[gameboy]

Those are his only results for the entire year. No other leagues or tournament play. 0-3 in 4.5 league -> bumped up! He hasn't won a match in 4.0 or 4.5 since 2001, most of his losses were complete blowouts, and he's now rated a 4.5 :shock:

Unless I can see his actual results, I can't really say. My guess is his losses were not as bad as you describe.

 

[g4driver]

If the player had the B rating before today, then he won't get bumped up because he's a benchmark.DH

The 3.5 player in question who went 15-1 (updated record) was self-rated, with a "S" before the year end results came out.

This player lost two matches at 3.5 this spring. One to another "S" self-rated player and one to a "C" rated player. The winner of the two "S" rated guys was DQed after the match. Now both players are "B" rated.

One was DQed and bumped to 4.0, the other one stayed at 3.5 The match went three sets, and the player who "lost" now has a "Win", and his yearly record was 15-1.

 

[athiker]

A few more data points:

3.5C bumped to 4.0:

Spring 3.5: 5-4 Doubles, 0-2 Singles (5-6)
Spring 4.0: 4-6 Doubles, 1-1 Singles (5-7)
Fall 7.5: 4-2

*One 3.5 singles loss opponent was DQ'd and bumped up. It was a bit of a surprise this guy did not get bumped up to 4.0 last year when several teammates did. Though his 3.5 record is only average this year he was competitive at 4.0 so that obviously got him the bump.

3.5C bumped to 4.0:

Spring 4.0: 4-1 Doubles
Fall 7.5: 2-3
Mixed 7.0: 5-1

*Had an injury last year or probably would've been bumped up along w/ the "great bump-up" last year.

3.5S bumped to 4.0:

Spring 3.5: 0-1 Doubles, 4-2 Singles (4-3)

*Bumped w/o playing 4.0. I assume the self-rating had some effect? He is a good singles player, legit 4.0, but only fair doubles player at 3.5. Did not play combo.

3.5C not bumped:
Spring 3.5: 1-1 Doubles, 4-2 Singles (5-3)
Fall 7.5: 2-3

*Did not play up and did not get bumped.

3.5C not bumped:

Spring 3.5: 6-3 Doubles
Spring 4.0: 3-3 Doubles
Senior 3.5: 1-3 Doubles
7.0 Mixed: 5-1

*Good 3.5 record, solid 4.0 record...so played up but still did not get bumped. Senior record came into play?...Obviously Mixed record did not come into play.

3.0C bumped to 3.5:

Spring 3.5: 2-4 Doubles
Fall 7.5: 0-6
3.5 Senior: 1-5
7.0 Mixed: 1-4

*This one is a bit shocking. He did have 2 more Mixed victories but they were both defaults so I did not include them in his record as thought not only did Mixed not count toward ratings but neither did defaults.

 

[Delano]

Those are his only results for the entire year. No other leagues or tournament play. 0-3 in 4.5 league -> bumped up! He hasn't won a match in 4.0 or 4.5 since 2001, most of his losses were complete blowouts, and he's now rated a 4.5 :shock:

That sucks... doesn't seem fair.

For me, though, it may have been the opposite - I suspect that playing up a level pushed my rating down a bit. I went 4-1 in 4.0 (4-0 singles, 0-1 doubles), though two of my four singles wins were very close matches. At 4.5, I went 0-4, lost every match in straight sets, and only played two "competitive" sets (ie., decided by one break) out of the eight.

It's hard to know exactly what's going on since the details of the dynamic rating system are deliberately hidden... and like I said, my matches at 4.0 were pretty close, and I did have one loss, so that alone might have kept me at 4.0 even without the 4.5 blowouts.

All I can say is, damn, top 4.5s are seriously good players. I didn't even feel like I was hitting the ball all that badly. There's no safe shot against those guys, you hit short, it's over.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I remain surprised that anyone is surprised that there are many weird results. How could there not be?

Me, I find it endlessly entertaining to find the single most bizarre result visible to the naked eye. I think I found it last night, when the single weakest player on a particular team was bumped up. Hee!!

 

[Cindysphinx]

:: gasp ::

I figured it out!!!

If someone is a USTA captain, the algorithm is deliberately set to make it extremely difficult for that player to move up. The reason is obvious: So that teams can continue.

No, wait! Hear me out!

In our ladies 3.5 flight, there were 12 teams and 18 captains/co-captains. Only three were bumped (1 captain, 2 co-captains).

In the other 3.5 flight, there were 11 teams and 14 captains/co-captains. Just one co-captain was bumped to 4.0.

Anybody care to prove me wrong?

 

[Fedace]

^^^maybe those captains suck bad. most captains are.

 

[JoelDali]

I already wrote this on another thread...captains with 20+ players rarely get bumped.

Except me.

 

[pennc94]

:: gasp ::

I figured it out!!!

If someone is a USTA captain, the algorithm is deliberately set to make it extremely difficult for that player to move up. The reason is obvious: So that teams can continue.

No, wait! Hear me out!

In our ladies 3.5 flight, there were 12 teams and 18 captains/co-captains. Only three were bumped (1 captain, 2 co-captains).

In the other 3.5 flight, there were 11 teams and 14 captains/co-captains. Just one co-captain was bumped to 4.0.

Anybody care to prove me wrong?

Difficult to prove wrong or right. I still think it has to do with who you play and beat.

In my experience, captains are just that - captains. These are people who tend to like to be captains rather than players. They would rather lead and assemble a team than play. I often find that captains are the weakest player on a given team. Not always true, but generally so.

 

[atatu]

Ian2 & NoSkillzAnday,

Thanks for reading, and not throwing rocks.

Do a drill down report in your area. You can see just how many players played up a level, then, look at the % who were bumped.

Atatu,

So what is your point? I made one. Do you have one?

Sorry you took offense, but I already knew that if you play up a level it's more likely that you will get bumped up. Not exactly "rock throwing" in my book.

 

[dlk]

I was a 3.0S, I played one league at 3.5 (with record of 1-3) & got bumped to 3.5C. 3.0 league record not much better. Just another example of "weird results." (Cindysphinx, 2010) I'm guessing that the competition I faced at 3.5 was high?

 

[Vik]

"Broke the code" That's funny. As if.

On a related note: it looks like USTA had made a decision to (nearly) freeze the up-movement at all levels above 3.0 and tweaked the NTRP algorithm to achieve this goal. I'm compiling some stats for my area (Denver Metro) and will post the results shortly in a separate thread.

Couldn't be further from what happened in Texas. Still a whole lot of bumping up. 4.5 further diluted b/c few 4.5s were bumped to 5.0. USTA just wants 98% of the population to be 3.5/4.0/4.5.

 

[g4driver]

atatu,

I'm not offended, but your post wasn't what Dale Carnegie would use IMO in your initial reply.

You know more about the USTA's algorithm than I do. I was just shocked that the USTA places more emphasis on playing up, than doing well at your current level.

The guys I played last night didn't get bumped and played us to 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, a much tougher match than the 6-2, 6-4 victory we had over the Senior guy, now a 4.0 He's going to need a lot of luck at 4.0, because he went 2-5 at 3.5 this year. Those five losses were in straight sets.

 

[J_R_B]

I played (and lost) two 4.5 matches this past year, both against 4.5C players including one that I lost 6-3 7-5 against a guy who was undefeated in the regular season on a team that went to nationals. My record at 4.0 was 9-6, including 2 wins against guys who were bumped. I was NOT bumped.

 

[ian2]

"Broke the code" That's funny. As if.

Couldn't be further from what happened in Texas. Still a whole lot of bumping up. 4.5 further diluted b/c few 4.5s were bumped to 5.0. USTA just wants 98% of the population to be 3.5/4.0/4.5.

You are right. Much more upward movement in Texas from 4.0 to 4.5 (men) than in Colorado. Around 15% for two TX areas I looked at, as opposed to 6% in CO. I was wrong to extrapolate CO stats nationwide. What does it mean though? 2.5 times as many "deserving" 4.0s in TX than in CO? Someone has an idea why there is so much variation between different locations? One would think the "rate" of movement would be fairly close for the same NTRP level, no?

 

[kylebarendrick]

Keep in mind that they also adjust sections based on the results at Nationals. That could explain why some sections see bigger changes than others.

 

[Jim A]

We complain all year about a lack of rhyme and/or reason and then look for it around the end of November each year.

More regions should be like Intermountain in my opinion, you can play @ one level. If you want to play 4.0 as a 3.5 and a team can fit you and be at level (75% at level) then so be it. If you want to play at level great.

Once you start playing up and not getting bageled, it is going to impact your dynamic rating. Lose 6-3, 6-3 playing up shows that you are competitive...

There are tons of people who we think *should* be moved up. I've seen someone the past 2 years who especially last year in the great bumpapalooza who somehow stayed at 3.5, while others moved past and on to the great 4.0 in the sky.

I think part of the non-movement in CO is exactly the lack of playing up that was noted earlier.

I don't think its a shock that if you play up and lose but its a normal score you may get bumped. Being competitive or at level doesn't mean winning, it means winning the # of games against another opponent that the USTA anticipates

 

[dlk]

We complain all year about a lack of rhyme and/or reason and then look for it around the end of November each year.

More regions should be like Intermountain in my opinion, you can play @ one level. If you want to play 4.0 as a 3.5 and a team can fit you and be at level (75% at level) then so be it. If you want to play at level great.

Once you start playing up and not getting bageled, it is going to impact your dynamic rating. Lose 6-3, 6-3 playing up shows that you are competitive...

There are tons of people who we think *should* be moved up. I've seen someone the past 2 years who especially last year in the great bumpapalooza who somehow stayed at 3.5, while others moved past and on to the great 4.0 in the sky.

I think part of the non-movement in CO is exactly the lack of playing up that was noted earlier.

I don't think its a shock that if you play up and lose but its a normal score you may get bumped. Being competitive or at level doesn't mean winning, it means winning the # of games against another opponent that the USTA anticipates

This is a concise post that makes sense to me.

 

[andfor]

........I don't think its a shock that if you play up and lose but its a normal score you may get bumped. Being competitive or at level doesn't mean winning, it means winning the # of games against another opponent that the USTA anticipates

FYI and I've been told by many with the USTA NTRP that 4 games is considered competitive. 6-2 6-2, 6-1 6-3, 6-4 6-0. Playing competitive matches against higher level competition in itself may not get you bumped, but it will not help either.

If you play up, expect to get bumped to that level unless you can't get more that 2 or 3 games per match.

 

[damazing]

An observation I have from this years ratings adjustments in my area is that players who played on tri-level teams were more likely to get bumped up even with overall losing records.

There were a few players that had not only losing records but mostly bad losses but it looks like because they played tri-level they got bumped up.


Also, the bump ups in my area created larger 4.0 and 4.5s and we now have almost enough 5.0's to have a team

Level Totals Newly Bumped
2.5 4
3.0 59
3.5 247 27
4.0 263 43
4.5 120 31
5.0 7 5

 

[g4driver]

http://www.tencaptennis.com/images/news/tennismagazine_aug2010.jpg

Dave Schobel, the USTA's director of competitive play, say's he's not familiar with Tencap and sees no need to modify the NTRP. "I would say [we're] satisfied with how it's working," he says.

Alan Schwartz, a former USTA president and the co-author of the origninal NTRP guidlines, said the NTRP could use a makeover. He likes Tencap's approach. "Certainly they have improved upon what we did, he says.

IMO, Mr Schobel comments show he's out of touch with reality, while a former USTA President and co-author of the original NTRP says the NTRP could use a makeover. The chasm between these two statements speaks volumes to me.

The USTA has a problem with 5.0s and 4.5s sandbagging at lower levels due to a limited number of players at this high of a skill level. The USTA's system is trying to correct the problem, but maybe Tencap has a better algorithm.

The USTA thinks a 49 year 4.0 and a 23 year 4.0 are equally match since the USTA algorithm makes no adjustment for age. Few 49 year olds can match the athleticism of someone half their age.

 

[wrxinsc]

^ this is true

 

[Cindysphinx]

The USTA thinks a 49 year 4.0 and a 23 year 4.0 are equally match since the USTA algorithm makes no adjustment for age. Few 49 year olds can match the athleticism of someone half their age.

I don't think the algorithm should adjust for age. I'm almost 50, but there are players decades younger I can beat because I have better strokes and movement. Why assume that the mere fact that someone is older means they will be slower around the court? Given the obesity levels in this country, perhaps the USTA algorithm should adjust for BMI instead.

 

[J_R_B]

I don't think the algorithm should adjust for age. I'm almost 50, but there are players decades younger I can beat because I have better strokes and movement. Why assume that the mere fact that someone is older means they will be slower around the court? Given the obesity levels in this country, perhaps the USTA algorithm should adjust for BMI instead.

I agree. The reason the NTRP formula thinks that a 23yo 4.5 and a 49yo 4.5 are equally matched is because their actual match results are comparable. If that is true, then why wouldn't they be equally matched? If there is a relative fitness advantage for the younger player, there must also be some other relative advantage for the older player (consistency, match experience, emotional maturity, etc) that equalizes their results or else the results wouldn't be comparable and they wouldn't have the same rating.

 

[g4driver]

I don't think the algorithm should adjust for age. I'm almost 50, but there are players decades younger I can beat because I have better strokes and movement. Why assume that the mere fact that someone is older means they will be slower around the court? Given the obesity levels in this country, perhaps the USTA algorithm should adjust for BMI instead.

I understand your point, but you don't control your age. Your parents were to blame.

Obesity is largely due to taking in too many calories, more so than genetics or lack of exercise. There are numerous studies than conclude this point. America is the most obese

I don't assume that older people are slower on the court as they get older. I know for a fact the average person will slow as they age. The evidence is clear when you look at age brackets of runners. Look at the times of 5K, 10K, and marathons. It is clear people in their 20s & 30s are faster as a group than people in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

In the tennis playing population, while you and I may be faster than someone half our ages, we are not the norm.